This could be Cafe Society, since it’s a TV show - but I am trying to solicit specific opinions.
I am daily becoming more and more fascinated with The People’s Court (not to mention more and more enchanted by the intelligent and beautiful Judge Marilyn Milian). I stay glued to screen and eat up all the details of every case, mull it over in my head during the commercial breaks, and eagerly await the judgements (and explanations for them). I feel like I am actually learning some useful and interesting things about the law. For a layperson anyway.
Now, I have watched the many other “court TV” shows but the other TV judges pale in comparison to Ms. Milian. I already started a thread fawning over her once so I won’t do that again here. But what I want to know is, having never been in the real court system (except for a small misdemeanor criminal charge when I was a teen, and my experience was extremely uneventful) - how much does she run her court like a real small claims court? Of course, it is small claims and the cases they try are not huge, legally complex cases. But as far as I know she is a real judge and her judgements are binding (though if a litigant on the show wanted to appeal her decision, what court would he/she have to go to?)
Haven’t seen the show in years–back since Wapner was the Judge. If it is still set up the same way, it’s a TV Show, not an actual Court. The litigants have agreed to be bound by whatever judgment is rendered–almost like a binding arbitration proceeding. I think, but am not certain, that each litigant is paid a certain amount for appearing, but any judgement against that party is deducted from the appearance fee. So even a guy that loses his case isn’t really out anything from his own pocket. There would be no appeal here–the litigants opted out of the court system for this form of alternative dispute resolution.
As far as procedure–eh, such things vary from court to court, but it’s reasonably close to what a small claims case is like in some courts. No lawyers, the judge provides a little more direction than in a regular court. The decisions are based on general legal principles.
The Judge is not acting as a real Judge. I’d suspect that like Wapner, she’s a former Judge–but in this forum, she doesn’t have the power of the State behind her. Always kinda wondered what would happen if somebody told her to fuck off. In a real Court, that would be a ticket to jail–don;t think she has the actual contempt power though.
The modern-day Doug Llewellyn, whose name I can’t remember, made reference recently to a binding arbitration agreement signed by the litigants after a losing litigant said in the hallway interview that he’d go sue in real court.
My $.02 - Milian is a retired judge, and for the sake of appearances she’s pretty good about justifying her decisions with real (if general) legal principles. She’s also been known to go to the individual state law when it’s a minority rule, which I again assume is for appearances.
Judge Judy, on the other hand, takes her role as arbitrator a bit further and will often make decisions that in the edited TV version appear to be based on no more than a hunch. Milian seems warier about her image and tries to make everything look justified.
Just going from memory, I think this happened once and Milian threw out the case and ordered the appearance fee forfeited. No idea whether she really can given the arbitration agreement, since of course I haven’t seen it.
I saw one episode where the defendant’s witness couldn’t appear because he was in the Navy and out to sea. She got very nasty and said that was no excuse, and found for the plaintiff.
I asked this exact question in my Civil Procedure class a few weeks back.
People’s Court, Judge Judy, etc. fall within the general category of “judge-for-hire” resolutions. Basically, the parties decide to settle their grievance outside of the court system using a hired judge (who generally is a former court judge. ) The advantage to the litigants is generally a much faster and less expensive conclusion to their dispute. You get a resolution on a specified day, instead of waiting several months to a year a for your case to be heard and dealing with the potential for multiple court appearances (each time you go to a court, you’re generally losing a whole workday).
Normally you do have to pay the judge though. As I understand it, it is like a form of binding arbitration, parties sign contracts to the effect that they will abide by the descisions of the neutral 3rd party. In the case of televised judge-for-hire operations, I imagine the parties pay nothing at all - a VERY desireable outcome for some people: finite, fast and free. The downside, of course, is that you lose the option of appealing your result!
However, would always have the option of suing a non-compliant party for breach of the arbitration contract. It would be pretty in the bag for the plaintiff BUT it would put you back where you started: waiting for your case to be heard in state court.
What Hello Again said. An additional incentive is that – at least back in Wapner’s day – the defendant can’t lose. In the fine print that would zip by at the end of the program it would tell you how things worked.
There is a fund set up set to the maximum small-claims amount in California ($1,500 at the time). Say the plaintiff is suing for $1,000 and Wapner finds completely in favor of the plaintiff. That thousand dollars comes out of the fund, then the remaining $500 is split between the plaintiff and the defendant. Not only does the defendant not have to shell money out of his own pocket, he gets 250 bucks for coming down and laying his case before a camera.
Worst case scenario for the defendant is he loses a case for $1,500. Then he gets nothing, but at least his pocket isn’t $1,500 lighter. Worst case scenario for the plaintiff is if Wapner finds entirely in the defendant’s favor. He still gets $750.
Only drawback I can find is embarrasing yourself in front of a national audience, but it’s not nearly as bad as Springer.
Yes, I knew about the appearance fee. I have always wondered how much it is - DesertDog, is that still accurate for The People’s Court specifically? I thought they filmed in New York, why would it be based on California’s small-claims amount?
Anyway, it’s not like who wins or loses is insignificant, because if they rule for the plaintiff for an amount equal to the appearance fee (so the defendant actually breaks even), it’s still a huge payday for the plaintiff, which the defendant isn’t getting any of. So I guess in that regard it’s almost more like a gameshow for them.
But, truly I am glad to hear that Judge Milian is following good and true legal principle in her cases. Though I have to ask about this -
Are you talking about Judge Judy or Milian? And if Milian - what were the other details of the case that led to her finding for the plaintiff? Could it be possible, good reason for a lack of witness or not, that from her point of view the defendant’s defense was just not credible?
I’m not DesertDog, but you’ll notice the plaintiff will usually file for the maximum allowable amount. Usually this is $5,000, but in some states the small claims cap is lower. I know I’ve seen $3,000 cases on Milian’s show, for example - I think from New Jersey.
Again, there’s probably nothing in state law that requires an arbitration case to be conducted with the state small claims limit, but this goes a long way toward The People’s Court’s image as as close to a real courtroom as you can get. It’s part of their marketing strategy. Larry Joe Doherty of Texas Justice was fairly stringent about using legal concepts but often went with moral gut reactions; I haven’t seen much of the new Divorce Court, but Mablean Ephraim (sic?) more or less didn’t consider legal concepts at all.
(I’m something of a TV court show geek.)
<hijack>
While we’re on TV court shows, has anyone seen “Eye for an Eye” with “Judge Extreme Akim”? This one sets off my BS detector regularly. Anyone know if it’s even marginally less fixed than professional wrestling?
</hijack>
I’m not talking about the amount the plaintiff files suit for. I’m talking about the appearance fee, and DesertDog said it was equal to the small-claims limit in California. Now that I read his post more closely though, he seems to be saying that the amount of the suit is deducted from the entire fund, and the plaintiff and defendant split the remaining amount evenly, which is just wacky.
Like a couple of others have admitted, I am also a law student, but perhaps I can offer something. I have to say that Judge Judy often does seem to decide cases based on a hunch, or at any rate, in favor of the party who pisses her off least. That’s not right. But I think Judy’s failing also lies in not explaining the law fully to the litigants and to the home audience.
For example, once my wife and I were watching her show. I called the result long before Judge Judy made it official–it was the law of fixtures, which we learned in first-year Property class. And sure enough, Judge Judy decided according to the common-law rule that we studied. Problem was, Judy either could not or would not articulate this to the litigants. It looked to my wife as if she was deciding on a hunch. To me, it was decided properly and according to common law.
I cannot explain all of Judge Judy’s decisions, and it is entirely possible that I haven’t studied enough yet, and/or she is indeed making decisions based on her hunches in court. But in some of the cases at least, it seems that Judy is making a reasonable decision based on common law. However, she does not explain that law to the litigants or to the audience. I wish she would; these common-law principles might help with school.
Judge Milian does, and this is part of why I like her so much. She also doesn’t seem swayed by emotion at all. She will often berate both parties for their misdeeds but make a fair ruling based on the evidence presented to her. Or she will sympathize with a party, but still rule against them. In my legally uneducated view, she always seems to be very fair.
In a 2000 interview with Larry King, Judy Sheindlin said that the appearance fee on Judge Judy was two hundred something dollars. I assume she means that’s the guaranteed minimum.
I have a feeling “Judge Judy” is pretty heavily edited to cut out anything boring and keep the cases simple and entertaining. It’s possible she provides more explanation or sees more evidence, but the home viewer doesn’t get to watch that.
Because they cull their participants from Southern California small claims filings. I had a friend who filed a small claim in Los Angeles County against a dry cleaners who had ruined her wedding gown. She was contacted by the People’s Court about dropping her suit and appearing on the show, which she was agreeable to. The cleaners, however, were not. I’m sure they didn’t want the massive negative publicity, and they settled with her out of court very shortly thereafter.
So does this go even for a time when the judge gets it wrong? I think, though not 100%, I saw on Judge Judy where one person had written a song. Another guy was a friend of the writter, took part of the song that he liked and wrote his own song. The original guy sued saying he stole his idea, the judge said he didn’t register his song so he’s SOL. Now I didn’t see the whole thing, but I always understood that if you write something it’s yours no matter what so the judge would be wrong.
I’m getting sick of seeing these things on TV, they are taking away my reruns.
That is great news. I live in Los Angeles! The reason I thought it was in New York was because A: the correspondant (Harvey) seems to be in a place surrounded by skyscrapers, and I just assumed it was NY (even though we have a few of those here) and B: I went on their website and their contact mailing address is in NY. But now I am so requesting tickets to a taping!
I always liked Judge Wapner because he was polite to those appearing before him (unlike Judge Judy, for example, although I think her show is more entertainment than education or justice) and he tried to explain his decisions. For example, I learned from him that a valid contract has to include an offer, acceptance and consideration.
Harvey is in NYC (Times Square, Broadway between 46th & 47th St) but they just watch the show on TV monitors. I also always assumed the show was filmed in NY because I could have sworn that when I’ve heard Judge Milian refer to different state laws, she’ll say “In your state, the law is…” when it’s not NY and just “NY State law is…” when the people are from NY as if NY is the default.
